“Zero-Sum Thinking” with Regard To Non-Monogamy
A zero-sum game:
In order for someone to win (+1),
someone must lose (-1).
This type of thinking is based on a premise of scarcity. In order to get what we need or want, we must either claim the resources first or take them from someone else. The net gain is zero.
Example:
Partners A and B have been together for 10 years, monogamously. Partner B wants to start exploring non-monogamy, but Partner A does not. Without carefully considering Partner A's needs, Partner B lays out an ultimatum: either they open the relationship or Partner B is going to start cheating.
If Partner A accepts the ultimatum, Partner B "wins" (+1) and Partner A "loses" (-1). There is no negotiation or consideration of compatible wants and needs. They're not operating as allies, but rather as enemies in the way of each other's goals.
Sex At Dawn discusses how sex and love are viewed as scarce resources in compulsory monogamy. A person can only sustainably have sex with and love just one other person (at a time).
However, that level of exclusivity isn't applied so intensely when it comes to children or friends.
Most parents seem to find enough love to spread around if they have multiple children. Many people have multiple friends in a variety of contexts.
In compulsory monogamy, love is seen as more of a competition instead of a cooperative, collaborative effort.
It is true that time, resources (e.g. money, physical space), and emotional effort have limits - polysaturation is very real. However, these limits are not nearly as strict and narrow as what is often portrayed in the monogamy-dominated narrative.
Here are a couple examples of how Partners A and B can develop a positive-sum outcome, a win-win:
Partner B wants to start exploring non-monogamy, but Partner A does not...
Exploring non-monogamy is very important to Partner B, but they still care about Partner A and do not want to hurt them. Partner A knows 100% that they only want monogamy. Both of them understand and decide to split romantically, but they remain friends.
Partner A knows they only want monogamy, but they are open to Partner B being non-monogamous. They talk about boundaries, discussing what each require to feel safe.
These are two vastly oversimplified outcomes, but they illustrate the contrast between win-win thinking and win-lose thinking. And sometimes, even after careful discussion, people find that their base needs are incompatible, but there are ways to still honor respective needs without settling for or forcing an outcome in which someone loses.
Losses cannot always be avoided, but we can sure try. In monogamous and non-monogamous relationships.
